i think this must be about the perfect resource for you. sorry about posting it so late in the process, but i think it should give you some inspiration and maybe help you make the map a little more historically accurate. it has many tribes, battles, and colonies, and shows their borders year by year. you may want to do it circa 1900, at which point things are mostly settled, or else do it circa 1870, before the scramble.good luck!

It seems even universities have a problem understanding that the berlin conference was no treaty representing true political, military or economic control.

small example: Congo free state didn´t conquer Katanga/Garanganze until -91 but this map pretends CFS of -86 was almost as big as DRC which is completely ridiculous. Large parts were still unexplored and certainly not officially CFS.

..but I´ve seen much worse - lots of lies and propaganda in colonial maps that doesn´t reflect actual history.

the easiest thing is of course to skip forward a couple of decades and pretend that the european version of history is the correct one..

guttorm wrote:just double-check what you see in that map. It has lots of errors.

It seems even universities have a problem understanding that the berlin conference was no treaty representing true political, military or economic control.

small example: Congo free state didn´t conquer Katanga/Garanganze until -91 but this map pretends CFS of -86 was almost as big as DRC which is completely ridiculous. Large parts were still unexplored and certainly not officially CFS.

..but I´ve seen much worse - lots of lies and propaganda in colonial maps that doesn´t reflect actual history.

the easiest thing is of course to skip forward a couple of decades and pretend that the european version of history is the correct one..

really? the reason the BWAC was called was in part due to Belgian expansion in the CFS, and to decide how to "deal with" human rights violations... even if they were unexplored, they were technically CFS. If the CFS was not that large and threatening, the BWAC would not have been called. I have seen maps where in 1884 the CFS was almost the same size as the DRC... i dont think that you can reasonably say that this map or Brown are either misinformed or evil.

This map is:a. incredibly detailed including battles and year-by-year expansionb. accurate as far as any map possibly could be: there are conflicting historical accounts. Not just african vs. european, but conflicting european, and conflicting african accounts.

choose to think that this map is BS if you want, but its pretty damned accurate, and a great source.

Also, being that you are in sweden (or your IP records you as being there), you seem to be one of the evil racist white people you are complaining about so vehemently.

vodean wrote: If the CFS was not that large and threatening, the BWAC would not have been called. I have seen maps where in 1884 the CFS was almost the same size as the DRC...

Stop looking at fake maps like that. That´s completely ridiculous and unhistorical. Read books on history instead of staring at erroneous amateur maps you found on the internet. ..anyone can make a map and include claims that doesn´t reflect officially recognised history or reality. It doesn´t change actual history.

i dont think that you can reasonably say that this map or Brown are either misinformed or evil.

What are you talking about? The Brown map is obviously misinformed since it has factual errors.. but evil? What do you mean? An error is an error - actual history should be your source, not any roughly extrapolated maps sourced from the internet. The ppl behind the brown map made mistakes but i don´t think it was on purpose so how can it be "evil"?I actually think the Brown map is quite impressive even though I found mistakes within seconds. Unfortunately their feedback link seems to be broken.

This map is:a. incredibly detailed including battles and year-by-year expansionb. accurate as far as any map possibly could be: there are conflicting historical accounts.

detailed, yes quite.. but once again; since it has errors.. definitely not as accurate as it could be.Going with my example (which you are ignoring..) there are no historical accounts for the CFS conquering Katanga in -86 because it didn´t happen until five years later.Where is your "conflicting historical account" that says Katanga was conquered in the eighties?Give me a source for that - an actual historical account.

choose to think that this map is BS if you want, but its pretty damned accurate, and a great source

never said it was BS and i agree it is "pretty" accurate regarding most things.. good for general basic reference but far from "as accurate as possible".I guess you are not very accustomed to using source criticism or similar.

vodean wrote:Also, being that you are in sweden (or your IP records you as being there), you seem to be one of the evil racist white people you are complaining about so vehemently.

I said nothing about that faulty concept called "race" - I don´t believe in it. You are the racist here dude.. read my post and what you quoted again.. you are inventing little things in your head, kid.Genetically I am less than 25% swedish.. and if you think they were as responsible for evil colonisation as the latin, anglo-saxon, main germanic etc world then you are very uneducated. People are people - their personalities are not shaped by the amount of melanin in their skin. Grow up, kid!

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

Checked the large myself, everything looks good except Yaounde. You have it with the accent over the 'e' in the xml but not on the map. Lourenco Marques, in the xml you have the thingy under the 'c' but not on the map. I'll check the small later.

Also the troop numbers on Cairo and Luxor, can you move them to the left so they are not overlapping the Nile River.

Checked the large myself, everything looks good except Yaounde. You have it with the accent over the 'e' in the xml but not on the map. Lourenco Marques, in the xml you have the thingy under the 'c' but not on the map. I'll check the small later.

I don't know what those marks mean or how they're supposed to sound. I'm ok with removing them from the XML, but if they are important I can always re-insert them into the map.

Also the troop numbers on Cairo and Luxor, can you move them to the left so they are not overlapping the Nile River.

No, that was done intentionally to make it clear that the river was not an impasse for Egyptian territories.

The Bison King wrote:I don't know what those marks mean or how they're supposed to sound. I'm ok with removing them from the XML, but if they are important I can always re-insert them into the map.

I'm fine with what ever way you want to do it.

No, that was done intentionally to make it clear that the river was not an impasse for Egyptian territories.

Well you do have the territory names going across the Nile, so that shouldn't be a problem. You can place army circles there so that the numbers are not hard to see. You know people will complain about it, so let's fix it now. Do it one way or the other, we just need to make sure the numbers are easy to see.

Once these couple of things are done I'll get this stamped for you.

Edit: Checked the small, same issue with Cairo and Luxor. Everything else looks good, and unless I missed something, once you fixed these minor problems You'll get the stamp!!

The Bison King wrote:I don't know what those marks mean or how they're supposed to sound. I'm ok with removing them from the XML, but if they are important I can always re-insert them into the map.

I'm fine with what ever way you want to do it.

I'll just add the accents back in.

isaiah40 wrote:

No, that was done intentionally to make it clear that the river was not an impasse for Egyptian territories.

Well you do have the territory names going across the Nile, so that shouldn't be a problem. You can place army circles there so that the numbers are not hard to see. You know people will complain about it, so let's fix it now. Do it one way or the other, we just need to make sure the numbers are easy to see.

Once these couple of things are done I'll get this stamped for you.

Edit: Checked the small, same issue with Cairo and Luxor. Everything else looks good, and unless I missed something, once you fixed these minor problems You'll get the stamp!!

Well, I'm not so sure people will complain about it. One of the complaints I've heard about Africa 2 is that some of the territories with rivers running through them are a little confusing. I think putting the numbers and name on the river is a way of making it as clear as possible that the river does not effect these regions. Now the clarity thing I totally understand, however I hate army circles. I used one on Celtic Nations and I kind of wished I hadn't. Instead I tried cutting the river away where the numbers will go. This way the numbers can sit across the river clearly. You can view this below. I hope this solution is satisfactory, if not we can figure something else out.

From those images Bison, a suggestion would be to have one cut away only for the name and numbers. Just move the numbers nearer the name a tad and that should look better. As it is now, the river - name - river - number - river looks a little odd.

Also, on the small, the number for Luxor could do with moving down a couple of pixels. It looks like it is sitting on the territ line.

koontz1973 wrote:From those images Bison, a suggestion would be to have one cut away only for the name and numbers. Just move the numbers nearer the name a tad and that should look better. As it is now, the river - name - river - number - river looks a little odd.

Also, on the small, the number for Luxor could do with moving down a couple of pixels. It looks like it is sitting on the territ line.

is there any way u can make the river more squiggly between cairo and luxor? it looks a bit like a road at the moment, while the upper nile really does look like a river.

a few adjustments to names: great britain was great britain & ireland by this time (compare with austria-hungary); cape region was cape province; south namibia was namaqualand; kavango was ovambo or ovamboland (the ovambo people are about 50% of namibia's population); namibia was südwest-afrika; botswana was bechuana or bechuanaland; yaoundé was jaunde; south africa ought to be southern africa; french sahara was known as french west africa.

iancanton wrote:is there any way u can make the river more squiggly between cairo and luxor? it looks a bit like a road at the moment, while the upper nile really does look like a river.

No, I think it's fine.

iancanton wrote:a few adjustments to names: great britain was great britain & ireland by this time (compare with austria-hungary); cape region was cape province; south namibia was namaqualand; kavango was ovambo or ovamboland (the ovambo people are about 50% of namibia's population); namibia was südwest-afrika; botswana was bechuana or bechuanaland; yaoundé was jaunde; south africa ought to be southern africa; french sahara was known as french west africa.

ian.

Again I think the name should be fine the way they are. I'm sure that you could make 100 different arguments for 100 different names for each territory on this map. Most all of the names currently in use came directly from IH and I trust his expertise on the subject. I've double checked most all of them and I didn't find anything that was terribly out of sync with the time period and theme.